Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Swan Lake
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1
Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................................................1
Refuge Vision ............................................................................................................................................................1
Refuge Goals ..............................................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for Plan ........................................................................................................................................2
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................3
The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................................3
Existing Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................................4
Legal and Policy Guidance .........................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................5
Meetings and Involvement ........................................................................................................................................5
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ......................................................................................................5
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP .......................................................................8
Wilderness Review ....................................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management ...........................................................................................9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................9
Ecological Context ......................................................................................................................................................9
Hydrologic Units, Watersheds, and Ecoregions ..................................................................................................9
Historic Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................11
Land Use/Cover .........................................................................................................................................11
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................11
Missouri Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy ...............................................................................................11
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ...................................................................................12
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area ..............................................................................13
Socioeconomic Context ............................................................................................................................................13
Population and Demographics ...........................................................................................................................13
Employment ......................................................................................................................................................13
Income and Education ......................................................................................................................................13
Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation ..................................................................................13
Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................15
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................................................15
Water and Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................15
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................16
Bottomland Forest ............................................................................................................................................16
Emergent Wetland ...........................................................................................................................................20
Open Water .....................................................................................................................................................20
Agricultural Fields ............................................................................................................................................20Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
ii
Native Prairie ...................................................................................................................................................20
Wet Meadow ....................................................................................................................................................20
Shrub Swamp ..................................................................................................................................................20
Old Field ...........................................................................................................................................................20
Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................................................20
Birds ..................................................................................................................................................................20
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................20
Amphibians and Reptiles ................................................................................................................................21
Fish and Other Aquatic Species ........................................................................................................................21
Invertebrates .....................................................................................................................................................21
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................................21
State-listed Species ..................................................................................................................................21
Federally Listed Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species ..................................................................21
Threats to Resources ...............................................................................................................................................21
Invasive Species ...............................................................................................................................................21
Exotic/Pest Species ...................................................................................................................................21
Siltation ............................................................................................................................................................22
Contaminants ....................................................................................................................................................22
Climate Change Impacts ...................................................................................................................................22
Observed Climate Trends ...........................................................................................................................23
Scenarios of Future Climate .......................................................................................................................23
Midwest Key Issues: .................................................................................................................................23
1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels ................................................................................................23
2. Agricultural Shifts ...........................................................................................................................24
3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ........................................................................24
Administrative Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................25
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ..........................................................................................................25
Visitation ..................................................................................................................................................................26
Current Management ...............................................................................................................................................26
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................................................26
Wetland Management ...............................................................................................................................26
Moist Soil Units .........................................................................................................................................26
Grasslands .................................................................................................................................................26
Forests .......................................................................................................................................................26
Cropland ....................................................................................................................................................26
Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................28
Bald Eagle ..................................................................................................................................................28
Waterfowl .................................................................................................................................................28
Shorebirds, Marsh Birds and Other Waterbirds ........................................................................................28
Vegetation .................................................................................................................................................28
Public Use .........................................................................................................................................................28
Hunting ......................................................................................................................................................28
Fishing .......................................................................................................................................................28
Wildlife Observation, and Photography .....................................................................................................30
Environmental Education and Interpretation .............................................................................................30
Non Wildlife-dependent Recreation ..........................................................................................................30
Species Management .......................................................................................................................................30
Animal Species .................................................................................................................................................30
Plant Species ....................................................................................................................................................30Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
iii
Archaeological and Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................30
Other Management Areas ................................................................................................................................30
Research Natural Area ...............................................................................................................................30
Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements and Fee Title Tracts ...............................................................30
Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................33
Goal A: Habitat .........................................................................................................................................................33
Goal 2: Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................................40
Goal 3: People ..........................................................................................................................................................41
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................47
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................47
New and Existing Projects .....................................................................................................................................47
Staffing ...................................................................................................................................................................47
Partnership Opportunities ......................................................................................................................................47
Step-down Management Plans .............................................................................................................................47
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................48
Plan Review and Revision ......................................................................................................................................48
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................................49
Appendix B: Glossary ...............................................................................................................................................101
Appendix C: Species List .........................................................................................................................................103
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species for the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem ...............121
Appendix E: Swan Lake NWR Priority Refuge Operations and Maintenance Costs ....................................125
Appendix F: References and Literature Cited .......................................................................................................129
Appendix G: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................133
Appendix H: Mailing List .........................................................................................................................................139
Appendix I: Draft Compatibility Determinations ..................................................................................................141
Appendix J: Appropriate Use Determinations .....................................................................................................175
Appendix K: List of Preparers and Contributors ...................................................................................................189Swan Lake
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Lists of Figures and Tables
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
iv
Figure 1: Location of Swan Lake NWR .............................................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Watersheds and Habitats, Swan Lake NWR ...................................................................................................10
Figure 3: Conservation Lands in the Area of Swan Lake NWR ......................................................................................14
Figure 4: Lower Grand River Watershed, Swan Lake NWR ...........................................................................................17
Figure 5: Watershed Comparison, Swan Lake NWR ......................................................................................................18
Figure 6: Current Land Cover, Swan Lake NWR .............................................................................................................19
Figure 7: Management Units, Swan Lake NWR .............................................................................................................27
Figure 8: Current Visitor Services Facilities, Swan Lake NWR .......................................................................................29
Figure 9: Yellow Creek Research Natural Area ..............................................................................................................31
Figure 10: FSA Parcels Managed by Swan Lake NWR ...................................................................................................32
Figure 11: Potential Water Movement and Likely Associated Vegetation, Swan Lake NWR .......................................34
Figure 12: 15-Year Desired Land Cover, Swan Lake NWR .............................................................................................36
Figure 13: Future Visitor Facilities, Swan Lake NWR .....................................................................................................42
Table 1: Current Land Cover and Potential Natural Vegetation in Grand River Watershed and Sub-basins ................12
Table 2: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 Miles of Swan Lake NWR for Four Activities ..................15
Table 3: Swan Lake NWR Soil Types by Acreage ..........................................................................................................16
Table 4: Current and Proposed Staffing Under the CCP .................................................................................................47
Table 5: Step-down Management Plan Schedule ..........................................................................................................48
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
Located in Chariton County near the town of Sumner, Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) bounds more than 11,000 acres of bottom­land forest, grasslands, and wetlands within the Grand River floodplain of north central Missouri. Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Refuge in 1937 through Executive Order. In 1938, Company 1727 of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) began work on levees to impound the waters flowing into the Refuge from Elk Creek, Turkey Creek, and Tough Branch. The CCC completed its work in 1942 and left behind several thousand acres of freshwater marsh and open water within Silver Lake and Swan Lake, the Refuge namesake. This change to the landscape caught the attention of migrating water­birds, especially Canada Geese, which shifted their wintering grounds north to the Refuge with a steady annual increase that peaked at more than 180,000 birds in 1977. Fewer geese winter on the Refuge today, but its mixture of habitats are home to a diverse wildlife community that attracts hunt­ers, anglers, and wildlife watchers.
Refuge Purposes
“Refuge purposes” is a term that refers to the purposes specified in or derived from one or more legal authorities used for establishing, authorizing, or expanding a national wildlife refuge, national wildlife refuge unit, or national wildlife refuge sub­unit. Below are the purposes of Swan Lake NWR and their sources:
“as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” Executive Order 7563, dated Feb. 27, 1937)
“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Con­servation Act)
“... particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 667b (An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife)
Refuge Vision
The Refuge vision is a concise, descriptive state­ment of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, based primarily upon the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge Sys­tem) and specific Refuge purposes, and other man­dates. We established the following vision statement for Swan Lake NWR:
Diverse and abundant wildlife flourishes within a mosaic of grass, trees, and wetlands recalling an earlier era when the Grand River meandered across its broad, open floodplain. Visitors enjoy recreation dependent on wildlife and show their appreciation by supporting conservation and Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge.Waterfowl on Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: USFWS
Refuge Goals
Considering the purposes of the Refuge and our vision for the future, we have established the follow­ing goals for Swan Lake NWR: Figure 1: Location of Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
2
Habitat: Wetlands, grasslands, and bottomland forests providing habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wild­life within the Grand River floodplain.
Wildlife: Diverse wildlife teeming within native habitats of the Grand River floodplain.
People: Visitors enjoy wildlife-dependent recre­ation and understand the natural and cultural resources of the Refuge and its role in their conser­vation.
Purpose and Need for Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) identifies the role Swan Lake NWR will play in sup­porting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and provides primary management guid­ance for the Refuge. The Plan articulates manage­ment goals for the next 15 years and defines objectives and strategies that will achieve those goals. Several legislative mandates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the development of this Plan. These mandates include:
Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
Wildlife-dependent recreation activities of hunt­ing, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife pho­tography, environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of the NWRS. These uses will be facilitated when they do not interfere with a refuge’s purposes or the mission of the NWRS.
Other uses of the refuge will only be allowed when they are determined to be appropriate and compatible with the refuge purposes and mission of the NWRS.
Following the recommendations of this CCP will enhance management of Swan Lake NWR by:
Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Refuge.
Giving Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the pub­lic an understanding of the U.S. Fish and Wild­life Service’s management actions on and around the Refuge.
Ensuring that the Refuge’s management actions and programs are consistent with the mandates of the NWRS.
Ensuring that Refuge management considers federal, state, and county plans.
Establishing long-term Refuge management continuity.
Providing a basis for the development of budget requests for Refuge operations, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Swan Lake NWR is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserv­ing, protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, manage­ment and protection of migratory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, admin­istration of the Endangered Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the Refuge System.Swan Lake NWR offers wildlife viewing opportunities. Photo credit: USFWS
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. Today, the System is a network of about 545 refuges and wetland management districts covering about 95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states and sev­eral island territories.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands specifically man­aged for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of international treaties for migratory bird conserva­tion and other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have been established to protect migratory waterfowl and their migratory flyways.
Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving endangered and threatened species. Among the most notable is Aransas NWR in Texas, which pro­vides winter habitat for the highly endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most endan­gered predators. Refuges also provide unique recre­ational and educational opportunities for people.
When human activities are compatible with wild­life and habitat conservation, refuges are places where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recre­ation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and envi­ronmental interpretation. Many refuges have a visi­tor center, wildlife trails, an automobile tour, and environmental education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2004.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve­ment Act of 1997 established several important mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa­ration of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and pur­poses of the individual refuges are carried out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the biologi­cal integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are to:
Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.
Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdic­tional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their ranges.
Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international signifi­cance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or under-represented in existing protection efforts.
Provide and enhance opportunities to partici­pate in compatible wildlife-dependent recre­ation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).
Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
4
Existing Partnerships
Working with others via intra- and interagency partnerships is important in accomplishing the mis­sion of the Service as well as assisting Swan Lake NWR in meeting its primary objective of providing a resting and feeding area for migratory birds and other wildlife. Partnerships with other federal and state agencies and with a diversity of other public and private organizations are increasingly impor­tant. Other agencies can provide invaluable assis­tance in research and maintenance. Private groups and non-profit organizations greatly enhance public involvement in the Refuge, building enthusiasm and support for its mission.
Besides the partnerships that the Service holds on a national level, Swan Lake NWR maintains informal partnerships with several organizations:
Friends of Swan Lake NWR
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Department of Transportation
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Farm Service Agency
Ducks Unlimited
Legal and Policy Guidance
In addition to the legislation establishing the Ref­uge and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, other federal laws, execu­tive orders, and regulations govern the administra­tion of Swan Lake NWR. See Appendix G for a list of the guiding legislation and executive orders.Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Meetings and Involvement
The comprehensive conservation planning pro­cess began with the CCP planning team holding a “kick-off” meeting in October 2006. Members of the planning team, which includes Refuge staff and Ser­vice planners, identified a list of issues and concerns associated with management of Swan Lake NWR. These preliminary issues and concerns were based on staff knowledge of the area and discussions with citizens in the community.
The CCP planning team then invited Refuge neighbors, organizations, local government agen­cies, and local staff of national and state government agencies, schools, and interested citizens to share their thoughts in an open house meeting on January 11, 2007, at the Refuge Visitor Center. More than 75 people attended the open house. We received 70 responses with dozens of individual comments by the close of the scoping period on February 22, 2007. Following the public comment period, an additional meeting was held in the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office to review the public comments and identify concerns from subject specialists.
A Biological Program Review, which is an evalua­tion of the relevance and direction of the biological program through the collective inputs of profession­als among the various fields of ecology and wildlife sciences, began with a 2-day meeting on February 21 and 22 of 2007. The Regional Refuge Biologist facilitated the event, which was attended by 16 indi­viduals with various state, federal, and academic affiliations. Information was presented on the Ref­uge, the general ecology of the region, establishing legislation and policy directives, current issues fac­ing the Refuge, prior program accomplishments, a report on the current biological inventory and moni­toring program, and a draft vision for the future.
The meeting was punctuated with field trips to specific sites to stimulate discussion and demon­strate issues of concern. The group discussed man­agement alternatives and potential strategies, identified potential biological program priorities, discussed the draft goals and objectives for the vari­ous program components and other ideas for the future of the program.
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities
Issues play an important role in planning. Issues focus the planning effort on the most important top­ics and provide a base for considering alternative approaches to management and evaluating the con­sequences of managing under these alternative approaches. The issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed during the first phase of planning have been sorted and summarized into a number of issue statements along with fuller explanations that include background information and comments.Sign repair at Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: USFWS
Issue Statement: The decline in Canada Goose use of the Refuge in recent decades has decreased the quality of goose hunting, drawn fewer hunters and wildlife watchers, and changed the cultural identity of the local communities.
Background: Beginning in the 1950s, use of the Refuge by wintering Canada Geese steadily increased until it peaked in 1977 at 181,000 birds. The large numbers of geese produced a spectacle Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
6
that annually attracted hunters and wildlife watch­ers to this rural area and prompted the nearby town of Sumner, Missouri, to adopt the slogan “Wild Goose Capital of the World” and to erect a 40-foot Canada Goose statue known as “Maxi.”
The decades following the peak saw a steady decline in the number of geese wintering on the Ref­uge. This diminished the annual spectacle, which drew fewer visitors and affected the prosperity and notoriety of the local communities. One popular belief is that a reduction in the amount of agricul­ture on Refuge lands is responsible for lower goose use of the area and that farming more acres would increase goose numbers. This view is not supported by studies of the Canada Goose population that show a variety of factors interact to affect their dis­tribution. These include increased availability of habitats across the landscape, fall and winter weather conditions, and variations in hunting pres­sure along the migratory flyway.
Issue Statement: The Refuge attracts high num­bers of waterfowl and other wildlife, making it appealing as a sanctuary as well as for those inter­ested in hunting and other wildlife-dependent recre­ation.
Background: Despite lower numbers of wintering Canada Geese, the Refuge still harbors abundant wildlife, notably ducks and white-tailed deer. Although goose hunting has been allowed for years, duck hunting has never been permitted at the Ref­uge. There is an increasing interest in allowing duck hunting on the Refuge in part to offset the decline in the quality of goose hunting. Others would prefer there be less or no hunting on the Refuge and instead support maintaining the Refuge as a sanctu­ary for waterfowl and other wildlife.
Issue Statement: Accumulation of sediment over several decades has decreased the depth and water holding capacity of Silver Lake and affected water quality.
Background: Silver Lake serves as a reservoir that supplies water for management of wetland units across the Refuge. It also provides fishing opportunities. The average volume of Silver Lake has decreased by about 25 percent from 1983 to present. Through the years, sediment carried from the 64,000-acre watershed by Turkey Creek and Elk Creek accumulated in Silver Lake, decreasing the depth and water holding capacity of the basin and reducing its water clarity. If this continues it would threaten wetland management across the Refuge. It also decreases the quality of the habitat for sport fish. Although changes in land use practices within the watershed in recent years are believed to have slowed the sedimentation rate, there are no mea­surements to support this.
Issue Statement: There are diverse and some­times conflicting expectations regarding the pres­ence, variety, and abundance of Refuge wildlife.
Background: Many people made specific sugges­tions regarding management of Refuge habitats or wildlife populations. Suggestions included:
increasing the number of pheasants, quail, or deer
decreasing the numbers of deer or predators
reintroducing Prairie Chickens
managing more intensively for waterfowl
managing less intensively for waterfowl
Developing guidance regarding Refuge habitat and population management that considers public input, Refuge purposes, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and other Service policies is one outcome of the comprehensive conservation planning process. Flooding is a significant issue facing Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: USFWS
Issue Statement: Slow water movement out of the Grand River Watershed during high water events increases duration of flooding on the Refuge and surrounding private lands.
Background: The nearly 12-mile Garden of Eden levee south of the Refuge protects 3,500 acres of land from flooding during high water events. The levee also narrows the outlet of the Grand River Watershed from 5 miles to about one-half mile. Floodwaters that accumulate across thousands of acres must funnel through this narrowed outlet. This slows water movement and aggravates flood severity and duration within the watershed. Severe flooding often damages Refuge roads and facilities, impedes management capabilities, and in some cases degrades wildlife habitat. Sluggish drainage Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
7
also affects lands adjoining the Refuge, especially if Refuge pools are at or near capacity when flooding begins.
Issue Statement: Refuge waters could be man­aged to create more favorable fishing opportunities.
Background: Although fishing occurs on Refuge waters, there has been little emphasis on improving the quality of the sport fishery. A 2007 fisheries sur­vey of Silver Lake, where most fishing occurs, reported it as shallow, turbid, and lacking deep water habitat and structure, none of which indicate a quality sport fishery. Wind action across the shal­low basin churns sediment and reduces water clar­ity, hampering the growth of aquatic plants that would otherwise serve as fish habitat. Only four of 14 species captured during the survey were sport fish, but these four species – white crappie, freshwa­ter drum, flathead catfish, and channel catfish – accounted for nearly half of the total fish sampled. A number of people commented that Silver Lake should be made deeper to improve fish habitat. Oth­ers suggested removing rough fish and stocking game fish.
Issue Statement: There are threats to the ecolog­ical integrity of Refuge ecosystems and opportuni­ties for restoration and enhancement of native habitats and rare species.
Background: Service policy supports maintaining and, where appropriate, restoring biological integ­rity, diversity, and environmental health. There are a number of threats to these elements, including the introduction and spread of invasive plants, declining water quality, and flooding. There are also opportu­nities to restore drainage pathways and native habi­tat. This includes habitat restoration that would benefit the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, a candi­date for federal listing under the Endangered Spe­cies Act, which is found on the Refuge.
Issue Statement: There is demand for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, other public uses, and facilities beyond what is presently avail­able.
Background: Service policy encourages national wildlife refuges to provide opportunities for six wild­life dependent public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Additionally, Swan Lake NWR provides visitors opportunities for gath­ering berries, mushrooms, or shed antlers. Zoning of these uses in both duration and extent helps avoid conflicts between user groups. A number of com­ments supported increasing the duration, available area, or amount of facilities for one or more of the existing uses. Others suggested allowing additional uses. Any use permitted on the Refuge must be found compatible in accordance with Service policy.
Issue Statement: The amount of maintenance, management, and visitor services needs exceeds existing capacity to fulfill these needs.
Background: The Refuge staff is responsible for maintaining 26 miles of roads and levees, 20 water control structures, managing more than 800 acres of moist soil, assisting with the implementation of three hunts as well as other aspects of Refuge administration and management. Refuge mainte­nance, management, and programming have declined in recent years as the number of staff fell from a high of seven to two. This is compounded by aging infrastructure and increased demand for visi­tor services. A number of people commented that more staff is needed.Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: FWS
Issue Statement: Widely scattered parcels and easements beyond the Refuge boundary provide management challenges and opportunities.
Background: Refuge staff members are responsi­ble for managing 46 easements and outlying fee title parcels scattered across 15 Missouri counties. Some of the properties have potential for habitat restora­tion and wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that would help fulfill Refuge purposes and support the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. But few staff and long distances mean these proper­ties currently receive little attention.
Issue Statement: There is interest in maintaining the remnant bottomland forest community within the Yellow Creek Research Natural Area.
Background: The Yellow Creek Research Natu­ral Area encompasses 1,000 acres of bottomland for­est along Yellow Creek. According to guidance, Research Natural Areas are not to be actively man­aged so as to serve as a reference point for compari­son with other bottomland forest areas. Log jams Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
8
within Yellow Creek impede flow during high water events, causing flooding that affects the bottomland forest within the Research Natural Area.
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP
The Swan Lake NWR CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) were prepared by the staff of Swan Lake NWR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office with help from Mangi Envi­ronmental. The CCP/EA will be published in two phases and in accordance with the National Envi­ronmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft EA (Appendix A) presents a range of alternatives for future management and identifies the preferred alternative, which is also the Draft CCP. A public review period of at least 30 days, which will include a public meeting, will follow release of the draft plan.
Verbal and written comments received by the Service will be incorporated where appropriate and perhaps result in modifications to the preferred alternative or in the selection of one of the other alternatives. The alternative that is ultimately selected will become the basis of the ensuing Final CCP. This document then, becomes the basis for guiding management on the Refuge over the coming 15-year period. It will guide the development of more detailed step-down management plans for spe­cific resource areas, and it will underpin the annual budgeting process through Service-wide allocation databases. Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people at the Swan Lake NWR that will direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within Swan Lake NWR were reviewed for wilderness suitabil­ity. No lands were considered suitable for Congres­sional designation as wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Swan Lake NWR does not contain 5,000 contiguous acres of roadless, natural lands, nor does the Refuge possess any units of suf­ficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge lands and waters have been sub­stantially altered by humans, especially by agricul­ture, drain construction, and road-building. Extensive modification of natural habitats and manipulation of natural processes has occurred. Adopting a “hands-off” approach to management at the Refuge would not facilitate the restoration of a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is the goal of wilderness designation.Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
9
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Introduction
Swan Lake NWR includes more than 11,000 acres of bottomland forest, grasslands, wetlands, and open water within Chariton County in north-central Missouri. Management responsibilities also include 57 smaller parcels totaling more than 2,000 acres scattered across 15 Missouri counties.
Ecological Context
Hydrologic Units, Watersheds, and Ecoregions
In the 1990s the Service adopted an ecosystem approach to management. This shift demanded a spatial framework, some type of mapped unit, which could be identified as an ecosystem. The Service chose to define its ecosystems based largely on hydrologic units as mapped by the U.S. Geological Service (USFWS, 1995). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service referred to these hydrologic units as water­sheds although the definitions and application of the two terms are different. A watershed is an area delineated by topography such that all surface drainage within the area converges to a single point, usually the point where the collected waters leave the watershed. The hydrologic units that form the basis of the Service’s ecosystem units in many cases do not follow the same boundaries as topographic watersheds.
The Service’s 53 ecosystem units each typically cover thousands of square miles. However, the hydrologic units, or watersheds as they have come to be known, form a nested hierarchy meaning that smaller watersheds combine to form larger water­sheds. Working from a narrow to a broad extent, the Refuge is within the Lower Grand River Watershed which is within the Grand River Watershed which is within the Lower Missouri River Watershed, which the Service recognizes as the Lower Missouri River Ecosystem.
Ecoregions are a different concept also used as a basis for describing ecosystems. Ecoregion bound­aries are based on a number of components includ­ing climate, geology, physiography, soils, and land cover. The intent of ecoregions is to depict areas within which the mosaic of these components is dif­ferent than that of adjacent areas. An interagency effort derived a common set of ecological units for Missouri based on the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (Cleland et al. 1997). Ecoregion boundaries do not coincide with water­shed boundaries, but like watersheds ecoregions occur within a nested hierarchy. Working from a narrow to a broad extent, the Refuge is within the Missouri-Grand River Alluvial Plain Land Type Association which is within the Missouri River Allu­vial Plain Subsection which is in the Central Dis­sected Till Plains Section. Great Egret at Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: USFWS
Watershed boundaries are helpful in determining the source of surface water flowing into the Refuge and assessing factors that affect water quantity and quality. Ecoregion boundaries are helpful in discov­ering relationships with other areas that have simi­lar habitats and other features (see Figure 2 on page 10). Figure 2: Watersheds and Habitats, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
10
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
11
Historic Vegetation
The following description of historic vegetation within the Grand River watershed is excerpted from the Grand River Inventory and Assessment (MDC undated).
The presettlement Grand River Watershed was characterized by long narrow prairies generally oriented north-south and divided by timbered ridge tops and stream valleys (Schroeder 1982). Only in the southwest part of the basin did prai­ries open up to wide expanses averaging 1 or 2 miles across.
Schroeder (1982) describes the riparian areas common to the watershed:
“In addition to the upland prairies, bottomland prairies occurred regularly on the flood plains of streams, sometimes becoming so extensive that timber was restricted to the river bank and rougher valley slopes.
“Large areas of the broad flood plains of streams in the Grand-Chariton region sup­ported a `luxuriant growth of coarse wild grass' (Watkins et al. 1921). Sometimes these wet prai­ries occupied the entire bottomland, except for a timber strip fringing the banks of streams. Clay or gumbo soils prevented good drainage, and marshes and ponds abounded.
“Survey notes reveal a complex pattern of small lakes or ponds, wet prairie, intensively mean­dering creeks with and without river bank tim­ber, and dense timber only along the Grand River channel in northwest Chariton County in what is now the Swan Lake area. There was nothing but wet prairie at the present Swan Lake site.”
Land Use/Cover
The Grand River Watershed extends across more than 5 million acres and was once covered by a mosaic of prairies and forests. Extensive land use conversion over the past century produced the cur­rent landscape dominated by agriculture. Table 1 on page 12 shows the distribution of current land cover as well as the potential natural vegetation based on county soil survey data for the Grand River Water­shed and several of its sub-basins.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several migratory bird conservation plans have been published over the last decade that can be used to help guide management decisions on refuges. Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented perspective. Several transnational migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implementation process. The regional plans relevant to Swan Lake NWR are:
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan – Dissected Till Plains
Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan
The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan
Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating priority species, modeled to a large extent on the Partners in Flight method of computing scores based on independent assess­ments of global relative abundance, breeding and wintering distribution, and vulnerability to threats, area importance, and population trends. These scores are often used by agencies in developing lists of priority bird species. The Service based its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of Conservation Concern pri­marily on the Partners in Flight shorebird and waterbird status assessment scores.
Missouri Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy
Congress asked each state to develop a compre­hensive wildlife strategy or, as they have become known, wildlife action plan. These plans examine the health of wildlife and prescribe actions to conserve wildlife and vital habitat before they become more rare and more costly to protect. Using wildlife infor­mation gathered over the past 30 years, Missouri's comprehensive wildlife strategy promotes manage­ment and benefits all wildlife, rather than targeting single species. The strategy identifies 33 Conserva­tion Opportunity Areas in which management strat­egies will conserve both wildlife populations and the natural systems on which they depend. For each Conservation Opportunity Area, a team of partners developed a common vision of issues and actions. Swan Lake NWR is part of the Lower Grand River Conservation Opportunity Area, which also includes Fountain Grove Conservation Area, Yellow Creek Conservation Area, Little Compton Lake Conserva­tion Area, Floyd Memorial Conservation Area, Sumner Access, and Pershing State Park. This net­work of lands and partners is working to fulfill the following strategies:
Restore riverine habitat abundance and diver­sity for native plants and animals.
Restore bottomland forests and woodlands to provide habitat for native plants and animals, with emphasis on species of conservation con­cern. Table 1: Current Land Cover and Potential Natural Vegetation in Grand River Watershed and Sub-basins
Potential Natural Vegetation
Current Land Cover
Grand River Watershed
Lower Grand River Watershed
Yellow Creek Watershed
Turkey Creek Watershed
Prairie
Pasture/Hay
1,479,521
Prairie
Cropland
1,148,901
Forest
Pasture/Hay
891,699
Forest
Forest
402,278
Forest
Wetland
347,450
Forest
Cropland
215,917
Forest
Pasture/Hay
459,825
Prairie
Pasture/Hay
278,183
Prairie
Cropland
268,057
Forest
Forest
142,800
Forest
Cropland
111,289
Forest
Pasture/Hay
152,029
Forest
Forest
31,593
Prairie
Pasture/Hay
20,330
Prairie
Cropland
19,794
Forest
Cropland
17,542
Prairie
Cropland
21,572
Prairie
Pasture/Hay
11,867
Forest
Pasture/Hay
11,401
Forest
Cropland
5,023
Prairie
Wetland
2,433
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
12
Manage wetlands and wet prairie habitats to benefit resident and migratory wildlife.
Expand wet prairie habitat to allow the connec­tion of eastern massasauga populations at Per­shig State Park and Swan Lake NWR.
Control populations of problematic exotic and invasive plants.
Educate landowners about the importance of conservation practice.
Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities
Every species is important; however the number of species in need of attention exceeds the resources of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 of the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of Resource Conservation Priorities. The list includes:
All federally listed threatened and endangered species and proposed and candidate species that occur in the Region.
Migratory bird species derived from Service wide and international conservation planning efforts.
Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals that represent an abbrevia­tion of the Endangered Species program’s pre­liminary draft “Species of Concern” list for the Region.
Appendix D lists Regional Resource Conserva­tion Priority species relevant to the Refuge. Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
13
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area
The state of Missouri and other federal agencies own and manage lands and recreation access sites within a 50-mile radius of the Refuge (Figure 3 on page 14). There are more than 100 state areas that include public access sites, fish and wildlife areas, including recreation areas, forests, historic sites, and nature preserves. The federal areas include several units of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge along the Missouri River. Local governments also own and manage community parks in the area. Conservation easements and lands enrolled in the Natural Resources Conserva­tion Service's Wetland Reserve Program contribute thousands of acres to long-term conservation efforts. Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: USFWS
Socioeconomic Context
Swan Lake NWR is located in Chariton County. The county is less racially and ethnically diverse than the state of Missouri as a whole. The popula­tion in the county has a lower average income and a lower percentage of high school and college gradu­ates than the state’s population as a whole.
Population and Demographics
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, the popula­tion estimate for Chariton County was 8,046 in 2006. The population decreased 4.6 percent from 2000 while the population of the state grew 4.4 percent during the same period. The county population was 95.9 percent white in 2006; the state population was 85.1 percent white. In Missouri, 5.1 percent of the people 5 years and older speak a language other than English at home; in Chariton County it is 2.2 percent. The county population is projected to be 6,492 in 2025, a 19.3 percent decrease from 2006. The largest community in Chariton County is Salis­bury with a 2006 population of 1,614.
Employment
There were 5,073 jobs in Chariton County in 2006. Farm employment accounted for more than 24.3 percent of the total jobs. Retail trade, local gov­ernment, and construction are also notable sectors.
Income and Education
Per-capita income in the county was $24,701 in 2005; in Missouri it was $31,231. The median house­hold income in 2004 was $34,315; for Missouri $40,885. In Chariton County, 11.4 percent of per­sons over 25 years of age hold a bachelor’s degree or higher; in Missouri 21.6 percent of persons older than 25 years hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Demand and Supply for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
In order to estimate the potential market for visi­tors to the Refuge, we looked at 2007 consumer behavior data within approximately 30, 60, and 90 mile drives of the Refuge. The data were organized by zip code areas. We used the three driving dis­tances because we thought this was an approxima­tion of reasonable maximum drives to the Refuge for an outing by different groups. From experience we know, for example, that visitors come from the nearby local area to view wildlife in the evening. We also know that people seeking interesting varieties of bird species drive from all over Missouri and east­ern Kansas and western Illinois to visit the Refuge. The 30-mile area extended beyond the communities of Chillicothe, Brookfield, and Carrollton. The 60-mile area included Cameron, Trenton, Kirkville, Moberly, Boonville, Lexington and a number of other communities. The 90-mile area included the Kansas City metropolitan area, Columbia, and Jef­ferson City.
The consumer behavior data that we used in the analysis is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. data. The company collects and analyzes data on consumer demographics, product and brand usage, and exposure to all forms of advertising media. The consumer behavior data were projected by Tetrad Computer Applications Inc. to new populations using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that classifies neighborhoods into segments based on their demographic and socioeconomic composition. The basic assumption in the analysis is that people in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend to have similar consumption, ownership, and life­style preferences. Because of the assumptions made in the analysis, the data should be considered as relative indicators of potential, not actual partici­pation. Figure 3: Conservation Lands in the Area of Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
14
Table 2: Maximum Adult Audiences Within 30, 60, and 90 Miles of Swan Lake NWR for Four Activities
Approximate Driving Distance to Refuge
Total Population
Birdwatching
Fishing
Hunting with shotgun
Contribute to environmental organization
30 miles
108,198
5,143
18,014
5,798
5,009
60 miles
535,531
26,933
84,471
26,939
15,691
90 miles
2,444,707
112,026
331,819
93,772
43,064
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
15
We looked at potential participants in birdwatch­ing, fishing, and hunting with shotgun. In order to estimate the general environmental orientation of the population, we also looked at the number of peo­ple who might contribute to an environmental orga­nization.
The consumer behavior data apply to persons more than 18 years old. Table 2 displays the con­sumer behavior numbers for each of the three dis­tances to the Refuge. The projections represent the maximum audience that we might expect to make a trip to the Refuge for approximate drives of half-hour, 1 hour, and 1 and a half hours. Actual visitors will be fewer because the estimate is a maximum, and we expect only a fraction of these people will travel to the Refuge.
We also considered the maximum number of stu­dents that might potentially participate in environ­mental education offered by the Refuge by looking at the school populations in Chariton County and in neighboring Carroll, Livingston, and Linn Coun­ties. For Chariton County the school enrollment in preschool through grade 12 was 1,729 according to the 2000 census. For Carroll, Livingston, and Linn Counties the equivalent enrollments were 2,099, 2,961, and 2,852 respectively. The projected school age (5-19) population for the four counties for 2030 is 7,756.
Climate
The climate of north-central Missouri is charac­terized by hot, humid summers and mild winters. Spring weather is turbulent and thunderstorms and tornados are fairly common. Average monthly tem­peratures range from 15 degrees Fahrenheit in Jan­uary to 80 degrees Fahrenheit in July. Average annual precipitation is 38.27 inches, with the heavi­est amounts usually occurring during the months of May, June, and September.
Geology and Soils
The Refuge lies in the glacial till plain of north-central Missouri. Underlying bedrock is primarily shale and coal with occasional limestone. The topog­raphy is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 653.91 feet to 741.56 feet.
Soil types of the Refuge are listed in Table 3 on page 16.
Water and Hydrology
The Refuge presently contains three major impoundments containing a combined total of about 4,300 acres and many smaller moist soil units. The largest impoundment, Silver Lake, contains 2,387 acres at full pool and is fed by a drainage area of 110 square miles (70 square miles from Turkey Creek plus 40 square miles from Elk Creek, see Figure 4 on page 17). Silver Lake waters can be drained to South Pool, Swan Lake, or other moist soil units on the Refuge. Additional local drainage adds 13 square miles to the drainage area of South Pool (918 acres at full pool) and approximately 5 square miles to the drainage of Swan Lake (987 acres at full pool).
Flooding is a frequent occurrence at many loca­tions within the Grand River Watershed. The Ref­uge is subject to flooding from local intermittent streams, the Grand River, and Yellow Creek. Two broad factors affect flood intensity and duration within any watershed: precipitation characteristics and the physical characteristics of the basin or watershed. Precipitation characteristics describe the supply of water to a basin and include the amount, duration, intensity, and distribution. The watershed shape, topography, and soils are deter­mined by geologic factors and are in many cases lit­erally set in stone. Land use is the primary basin characteristic controlled by humans. Modifications to the landscape by practices such as deforestation, mining, and farming, as well as structures such as dams, levees, bridges, channels, and pavement all affect runoff and flooding. There are many such modifications within the Grand River Watershed that both speed and impede surface runoff. All of these factors interact and contribute to flood fre­quency and duration within the watershed (see Figure 5 on page 18).
Two modifications that are prevalent are chan­nelization and levee construction. Channelization Table 3: Swan Lake NWR Soil Types by Acreage
Soil Type
Acreage
Percent
Carlow silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded
0
0.0%
Shannondale silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
10
0.1%
Zook silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
10
0.1%
Gifford silty clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, eroded, rarely flooded
35
0.3%
Grundy silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
38
0.3%
Speed silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
151
1.4%
Lagonda silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
168
1.5%
Blackoar silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
217
2.0%
Triplett silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded
367
3.3%
Dockery silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
419
3.8%
Tice silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
440
4.0%
Tina silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded
797
7.2%
Carlow silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
1125
10.2%
Water
3137
28.5%
Tuskeego silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
4110
37.3%
11,025
100.0%
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
16
includes straightening natural stream meanders, clearing the banks, and widening and deepening the channel (Funk and Ruhr 1971). This results in a loss of stream habitat, increased bank erosion, and lower ground water levels (Funk and Ruhr 1971). Levee construction separates the stream from its flood­plain. Flood water can no longer spread out and is concentrated within the channel, causing further streambank erosion. Many landowners consider channelization and levee construction legitimate stream management practices. Several streams within the basin have been channelized for over one-half their length. A substantial portion of the streams in the basin are confined by levees.
Refuge Habitats and Wildlife
All wildlife requires some combination of food, water, cover, and space. Together these elements are commonly referred to as habitat. Cover types, also referred to as habitat types, are one method of describing habitat. Cover types are discrete areas delineated by differences in dominant vegetative cover. Although cover typing does not fully describe all of the components of habitat it is a useful concept to assist in management. Cover types are derived from aerial photographs that show the variation of Refuge habitats. The boundaries of each cover type are digitally outlined forming a mosaic of polygons that are individually labeled. The resulting map seen in Figure 6 on page 19 depicts the existing cover types found on the Refuge.
The cover types shown in Figure 6 were devel­oped based on the National Vegetation Classifica­tion System (NVCS), the Federal Standard for vegetative classification. A number of the NVCS categories were combined to form the eight cover types depicted.
Bottomland Forest
There are more than 3,100 acres of bottomland forest on the Refuge with the largest contiguous block found within the Research Natural Area along Yellow Creek. This cover type consists of bottom­land closed-canopy hardwood forest generally occurring on wet soil and in floodplains. It is domi­nated by pin oak, silver maple, swamp white oak, and shagbark hickory with green ash, elm, black willow, river birch, and honey locust. The under­story varies from open areas dominated with sedges and woodland forbs to denser areas with a shrub layer composed of Missouri gooseberry (Ribes mis­souriense), Western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), and common pricklyash (Zanthoxy­lum americanum). These areas are subject to sea­sonal flooding. Figure 4: Lower Grand River Watershed, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
17
Figure 5: Watershed Comparison, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
18
Figure 6: Current Land Cover, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
19
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
20
Emergent Wetland
There are over 2,000 acres of emergent wetland habitat on the Refuge. Emergent wetlands, com­monly referred to as marshes and sloughs, are char­acterized by erect, rooted water plants that are present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands normally contain standing water, though at times they will dry up. Common perennial plants found in emergent wetlands include cattail, bulrushes, arrowheads, and sedges. Pres­ently more than 800 acres of this habitat are man­aged using moist soil practices in which water levels are manipulated to create optimum wetland habitat conditions for migratory birds.
Open Water
Silver Lake contains nearly all of the more than 2,100 acres of open water on the Refuge. This cover type is defined as having less than 4 percent visible vegetation, which is either floating or submerged.
Agricultural Fields
There are 1,365 acres of agricultural fields on the Refuge. These are cultivated areas that consist of a variety of grasses and forbs or row crops such as wheat, corn or annual/perennial mixtures mowed for hay. Some of these areas are subject to occasional flooding.
Native Prairie
The Refuge contains approximately 1,000 acres of native prairie. These areas were either rarely or never cultivated in the past. Flooding and surface water is often present during much of the year. Native prairie sites are grassy fields dominated by reed canary grass, sedges and native grasses with a small number of scattered shrubs and small trees.
Wet Meadow
Wet meadow habitat occurs on about 110 acres of the Refuge. It is a type of wetland that commonly occurs in poorly drained areas such as shallow lake basins, low-lying farmland, and the land between shallow marshes and upland areas. Wet meadows often resemble grasslands, but are typically drier than other marshes except during periods of sea­sonal high water. For most of the year wet meadows are without standing water, though the high water table allows the soil to remain saturated. A variety of water-loving grasses, sedges, rushes, and wetland wildflowers proliferate in the highly fertile soil of wet meadows.
Shrub Swamp
There are approximately 410 acres of shrub swamp habitat on the Refuge, most of which occurs along the perimeter of open water and emergent wetland habitats. Shrub swamp is dominated by deciduous woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height. Dominant species are mostly buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and willow Salix spp.with an underlying mix of sedges and grasses and/or emergent vegetation, depending on water depth. The shrub layer varies from mostly open (25 per­cent) to closed (80 percent) and may contain scat­tered trees.
Old Field
The 240 acres of old field habitat occurs on dis­turbed soils and is dominated by reed canary, smooth brome, quack grass and weedy herbaceous species. These areas are usually drier than those of wet meadow habitat and were once regularly culti­vated for crops but now are left fallow. They are subject to occasional flooding.
Wildlife
Birds
A variety of birds are year-around residents of Swan Lake NWR, including many waterfowl. Dur­ing the spring and fall migrations, there is a great diversity of migrants due to its location between two major migratory bird corridors, the Central Flyway and the Mississippi Flyway. It is not uncommon for the Refuge to host up to 100,000 ducks, comprised mostly of dabblers, during the fall migration. The Eastern Prairie Population (EPP) of Canada Geese used Swan Lake NWR as their main wintering grounds until the late 1980s. In recent years winter distribution of the EPP flock has shifted farther north, but thousands of geese still winter on the Refuge. Wintering waterfowl also attract Bald Eagles. The Refuge also provides habitat for thou­sands of migratory shorebirds and is designated as a regionally important site under the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. The shal­low water wetlands and moist soil units on the Ref­uge provide critical habitat for many species of waterfowl, shore birds, and marsh birds while the grasslands, forested wetlands, and farmland pro­vide habitat for a variety of passerine birds. A com­plete list of bird species and a general guide to their seasonal occurrence and status on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C.
Mammals
There are 46 mammals documented as occurring on the Refuge. The mammals include the federally listed endangered Indiana bat as well as the white-tailed deer, a species popular for hunting and wild­life viewing. The presence of a reproductively active female Indiana bat was documented in 2003. The bats appear to be finding summer roosts within the Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
21
bottomland forest of the Yellow Creek Research Natural Area. Seven mammal species: plains pocket gopher, Franklin’s ground squirrel, Eastern chip­munk, hispid cotton rat, Norway rat, Eastern spot­ted skunk, and gray fox are known to have occurred but have not been documented in recent years. A complete list of mammal species that occur on the Refuge can be found in Appendix C.
Amphibians and Reptiles
A variety of salamanders, toads, turtles, lizards, frogs, and snakes inhabit the Refuge including the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Candi­date species are plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient infor­mation on their biological status and threats to pro­pose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which develop­ment of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Swan Lake NWR is one of only three sites left in the state of Missouri where the rattlesnakes are known to be present.
Fish and Other Aquatic Species
A 2007 fisheries survey of Silver Lake found 15 species including white crappie, freshwater drum, flathead catfish, and shortnose gar. Flood events dramatically affect the number and composition of the Silver Lake fishery. An earlier survey of Silver Lake conducted in 1996 identifed 16 fish species, but only 9 of these were reported again in the 2007 sur­vey. No fisheries surveys have been conducted on other Refuge waters.
Eleven mussel species have been documented within Refuge waters including the Flat Floater (Anodonta suborbiculata), a species listed as imper­iled within Missouri.
Invertebrates
No comprehensive survey of invertebrates has been completed on the Refuge, but 20 species of but­terflies and 24 species of dragonflies are docu­mented as occuring on the Refuge. A list of these species is included in Appendix C.
Threatened and Endangered Species
State-listed Species
A number of species of concern within the state of Missouri are documented within the Refuge including: Least Bittern, Sora, Common Moorhen, and Franklin's ground squirrel.
Federally Listed Threatened/Endangered/Candidate Species
Presently, two species listed as federally endan­gered, Interior Least Tern and Indiana bat, have been documented as occurring on the Refuge. The Interior Least Tern uses the Refuge as migratory stop-over habitat and the Indiana bat uses the bot­tomland hardwoods of the Yellow Creek Research Natural Area as breeding habitat. The Refuge is also one of the few places where the eastern massas­auga rattlesnake, a candidate for federal listing, is known to occur.
Threats to Resources
Invasive Species
Exotic/Pest Species
Some exotic (also known as non-native or alien) plants greatly alter the plant communities of natural areas while others more commonly affect already disturbed or agricultural areas. Left unchecked, noxious plant species can seriously degrade the pro­ductivity and wildlife value of invaded habitats.
Fortunately, most Refuge wetlands are relatively free of noxious plants. Those in the area possessing the greatest potential for serious impacts include reed canary grass. Monitoring will be necessary to assure prompt action is taken to control these plants before they become a problem in the future.
On upland sites and agricultural communities, the most troublesome noxious plant is Sericia Les­pedeza. Owing to its hardiness, growth and repro­ductive mechanisms, this introduced species is difficult to control and located in various areas of the Refuge. Currently little is known of what areas are infested, monitoring will need to be completed to determine the extent of infestation on the Refuge.
Eastern massasauga rattlesnake. Photo credit: USFWS
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
22
Siltation
With its 7,900-square-mile watershed extending into Iowa, the Grand River has been a constant source of floodwater and debris entering Swan Lake NWR. Hundreds of levees have increased velocity and frequency of flooding, impacting Refuge water management, facilities, and habitat. This alteration of hydrology is of major concern.
Contaminants
A Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) was conducted for this Refuge in 1993 and updated in 2005. A CAP is an information gathering process and initial assessment of a national wildlife refuge in relation to environmental contaminants.
The Refuge is surrounded by an agricultural landscape. Agricultural runoff flows into the streams of the Grand River Watershed, four of which flow through or adjacent to the Refuge. This agricultural runoff contains whatever residue from pesticides and fertilizers that have been used on the fields in the watershed.
Pesticide re-deposition is a phenomenon that has been documented throughout the Midwest, includ­ing Missouri. Pesticides become airborne through volatilization and wind erosion of particles both dur­ing and after the application process. Once airborne, the pesticide can be carried by wind and deposited onto unintended areas by dry (gas and particle) and wet (fog and precipitation by rain and snow) deposi­tional processes. These deposited residues can revolatilize, re-enter the atmosphere, and be trans­ported and redeposited downwind repeatedly until they are transformed and accumulated, usually in areas with cooler climates. For example, atrazine, a commonly used herbicide, is frequently found in riv­ers, streams, and groundwater. It is also often found in air and rain. The U.S. Geological Survey found that atrazine was detected in rain at nearly every location tested. Atrazine in air or rain can travel long distances from application sites. The effects of nonpoint source pollution and pesticide re-deposition on the resident and migratory communi­ties of the Swan Lake NWR have not been deter­mined.
The 1993 Swan Lake NWR Contaminants Survey documented potential contamination problems from dieldrin, chlordane, copper, chromium, manganese, and zinc on the Refuge. The major source of these compounds was speculated to be agricultural runoff from the area surrounding the Refuge. It was rec­ommended that if there was concern that popula­tions of fish and wildlife using the Refuge were decreasing or did not seem healthy, there should be further investigations into the abovementioned com­pounds.
Since that 1993 CAP survey, there may have been changes in agricultural practices in the watershed. Confined animal facility operations have become more prevalent in the watershed. The effects of these changes should be monitored. Eutrophication from increased nutrients from nonpoint source pol­lution has become a cause for concern on many natu­ral areas throughout the nation (Molitor, 2006).
Climate Change Impacts
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.
The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as global warming. In relation to comprehensive con­servation planning for national wildlife refuges, car­bon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact that refuges can affect in a small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development” defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”
Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert – are effective both in preventing carbon emission and acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric CO2. The Department of Energy report’s conclu­sions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio­sphere.
Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges and management areas. The actions pro­posed in this CCP would conserve or restore land and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the WMA. This in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate change.
One Service activity in particular – prescribed burning – releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere from the biomass consumed during combustion. However, there is actually no net loss of carbon, since new vegetation quickly germinates and sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et al. 2006). Overall, there should be little or no net change in the amount of carbon sequestered at Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
23
Swan Lake NWR from any of the proposed manage­ment alternatives.
Several impacts of climate change have been identified that may need to be considered and addressed in the future:
Habitat available for cold water fish such as trout and salmon in lakes and streams could be reduced.
Forests may change, with some species shifting their range northward or dying out, and other trees moving in to take their place.
Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding habitat due to stronger and more frequent droughts.
Changes in the timing of migration and nesting could put some birds out of sync with the life cycles of their prey species.
Animal and insect species historically found far­ther south may colonize new areas to the north as winter climatic conditions moderate.
The managers and resource specialists responsi­ble for the WMA need to be aware of the possibility of change due to global warming. When feasible, documenting long-term vegetation, species, and hydrologic changes should become a part of research and monitoring programs on the WMA. Adjustments in land management direction may be necessary over the course of time to adapt to a changing climate.
The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 2000 report: Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Cli­mate Variability and Change, produced by the National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to help the US Global Change Research Program fulfill its mandate under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. These excerpts are from the section of the report focused upon the eight-state Midwest Region.
Observed Climate Trends
Over the 20th century, the northern portion of the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, has warmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), while the southern portion, along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius). Annual precipitation has increased, with many of the changes quite substantial, including as much as 10 to 20 percent increases over the 20th century. Much of the precipitation has resulted from an increased rise in the number of days with heavy and very heavy precipitation events. There have been moderate to very large increases in the number of days with excessive moisture in the eastern portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Scenarios of Future Climate
During the 21st century, models project that temperatures will increase throughout the Mid­west, and at a greater rate than has been observed in the 20th century. Even over the northern portion of the region, where warming has been the largest, an accelerated warming trend is projected for the 21st century, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The aver­age minimum temperature is likely to increase as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1 degree Celsius) more than the maximum tem­perature. Precipitation is likely to continue its upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 to 30 percent increases are projected across much of the region. Despite the increases in precipitation, increases in temperature and other meteorological factors are likely to lead to a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river levels, and more drought-like conditions in much of the region. In addition, increases in the proportion of precipitation coming from heavy and extreme precipitation are very likely.
Midwest Key Issues:
1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels
Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based transportation and recreation are all climate-sensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the projected increase in precipitation, increased evaporation due to higher summer air tempera­tures is likely to lead to reduced levels in the Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this question, 11 suggest significant decreases in lake levels while one suggests a small increase. The total range of the 11 models' projections is less than a 1-foot increase to more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot (1.5- meter) reduction would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake levels cause reduced hydropower generation down­stream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by 2050. An increase in demand for water across the region at the same time as net flows decrease is of particular concern. There is a pos­sibility of increased national and international tension related to increased pressure for water diversions from the Lakes as demands for water increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely to cause water quality issues to become more acute. In addition, the projected Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
24
increase in very heavy precipitation events will likely lead to increased flash flooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point source pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water levels are likely to make water-based transpor­tation more difficult with increases in the costs of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover extends the navigation season. Shoreline dam­age due to high lake levels is likely to decrease 40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels.
Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river lev­els would require adaptations such as re-engi­neering of ship docks and locks for transportation and recreation. If flows decrease while demand increases, international commis­sions focusing on Great Lakes water issues are likely to become even more important in the future. Improved forecasts and warnings of extreme precipitation events could help reduce some related impacts.
2. Agricultural Shifts
Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a capacity to adapt to moderate differences in growing season climate, and it is likely that agriculture would be able to continue to adapt. With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of plant­ing a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertil­ization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited. However, yields are not likely to increase in all parts of the region. For example, in the southern por­tions of Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline, with 10-20 percent decreases projected in some locations. Consumers are likely to pay lower prices due to generally increased yields, while most producers are likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbi­cides are very likely to be required and to pres­ent new challenges.
Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding new varieties for the new growing conditions. Farmers can then choose varieties that are bet­ter attuned to the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders will need to use all the tools of plant breeding, including genetic engineer­ing, in adapting to climate change. Changing planting and harvest dates and planting densi­ties, and using integrated pest management, conservation tillage, and new farm technologies are additional options. There is also the poten­tial for shifting or expanding the area where certain crops are grown if climate conditions become more favorable. Weather conditions during the growing season are the primary fac­tor in year-to-year differences in corn and soy­bean yields. Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions; severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of over 30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are likely to help farmers adjust their practices from year to year to respond to such events.
3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems
The Upper Midwest has a unique combination of soil and climate that allows for abundant coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures and increased evaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage, and make current forest­lands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It is likely that the southern transition zone of the boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of temperate forests, which in turn will have to compete with other land use pressures. How­ever, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an increase in tree growth rates on marginal for­estlands that are currently temperature-lim­ited. Most climate models indicate that higher air temperatures will cause greater evaporation and hence reduced soil moisture, a situation conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century progresses, there will be an increased likelihood of greater environmental stress on both decidu­ous and coniferous trees, making them suscepti­ble to disease and pest infestation, likely resulting in increased tree mortality.
As water temperatures in lakes increase, major changes in freshwater ecosystems will very likely occur, such as a shift from cold water fish species, such as trout, to warmer water species, such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an environment more suscepti­ble to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phospho­rus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in heavy precipi­tation events. This, coupled with warmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the detriment of other living things. Declining lake levels are likely to cause large impacts to the current distribution of wetlands. There is some chance that some wetlands could gradually Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
25
migrate, but in areas where their migration is limited by the topography, they would disap­pear. Changes in bird populations and other native wildlife have already been linked to increasing temperatures and more changes are likely in the future. Wildlife populations are par­ticularly susceptible to climate extremes due to the effects of drought on their food sources.
Administrative Facilities
Administrative facilities consist of roads and developed sites for administration of the Refuge and public use activities. The administrative area of the Refuge currently consists of a maintenance shop, carpentry shop, three cold storage buildings for vehicle and equipment parking and a couple of out­buildings for storage, the Refuge Visitor Center/Headquarters building, Refuge quarters and a pub­lic toilet.
There are 13 pit blinds located on the Refuge available for goose hunters, a short nature trail, boat ramp, 5 small fishing platforms, a kiosk and viewing area on the main entrance road overlooking Swan Lake, and approximately 20 miles of auto tour route. There is also the old hunting headquarters site which was previously occupied by MDC person­nel. That site consists of two buildings, one is closed and no longer used, the other is a half-finished garage/storage area where goose draws and hunter check-in are conducted during the hunting season. There are also two vault toilets at the site which still belong to MDC.
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
North-central Missouri contains archeological evidence for the earliest suspected human presence in the Americas, the Early Man cultural period prior to 12,000 B.C.; and extending through the PaleoIn­dian, Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and historic Western cultures. Although a complete cultural sur­vey of the Refuge has not been performed, earlier partial surveys have located 30 historical and arche­ological sites.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides the framework for federal review and consideration of cultural resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing regulations for the Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The Sec­retary of the Interior maintains the National Regis­ter of Historic Places (NRHP) and sets forth significance criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural resources may be consid­ered “historic properties” for the purpose of consid­eration by a federal undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; those requiring a federal per­mit, license or approval; and those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a dele­gation or approval by a federal agency.” Historic properties are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior, and those that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion. Swan Lake NWR Visitor Center. Photo credit: FWS
Like all federal agencies, the Service must abide by Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involve­ment. The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about proce­dures, compliance, and implementation of the sev­eral cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO (early in the process) about Service undertakings, by pro­tecting archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by moni­toring archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations.
Swan Lake NWR follows these procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving any cul­tural legacy that may potentially occur on the Ref­uge. Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy earth-mov­ing equipment like tractors, graders, and bulldoz­Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
26
ers, the Refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the subject property. The results of this survey are submitted to the RHPO as well as the Missouri State Historic Pres­ervation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural resources are actually encoun­tered during construction activities, the Refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately.
Visitation
Swan Lake NWR is open Refuge-wide sunrise to sunset from March through October, amounting to about 240 days a year. There are three entrances to the Refuge including the main entrance, north entrance and the west entrance. The Refuge is open to goose hunting during the goose season, which is usually mid November through the end of Febru­ary. The Visitor Center is opened during weekdays and occasionally opened during special events and staffed by the local Audubon group. Environmental education program. Photo credit: USFWS
The Refuge annual visitation was estimated at approximately 25,000 in 2008. The number of visi­tors per year is obtained through estimates derived in large part from traffic counters at the three Ref­uge entrances.
We do not have an accurate breakdown of visitor numbers per activity but we believe the largest seg­ment of our visitors come for wildlife viewing, fol­lowed by fishing, education, and hunting.
Current Management
Habitat Management
Current habitat management activities consist of water level manipulation, farming, moist soil man­agement, prescribed burning, mowing, and deer population control through public hunting pro­grams. (Figure 7)
Wetland Management
Most wetland management activities on the Ref­uge are carried out through moist soil management described in the following section. Other wetlands are typicly held in emergent marsh with natural fluctuations of water through natural flooding and drought cycles.
Moist Soil Units
Approximately 800 acres are under moist soil management to produce food for migrating water­fowl and shorebirds. Moist soil units are developed to impound water through construction of dikes and water control structures. Moist soil management entails manipulating water levels to encourage the growth of plants occurring naturally in the seed bank. The plants produce seeds that are high energy food for migrating waterfowl.
Flooding of moist soil units begins in September and proceeds in stages. Progressive flooding con­centrates feeding waterfowl, more fully utilizing moist soil foods. Draining begins in March to exposes mud flats and attract migrating shorebirds that feed on invertebrates. The moist soil units remain dry throughout the growing season to pro­duce food for the following year. Periodically, the units are disturbed to disturb the soil and retard invasion of woody vegetation.
Grasslands
The Refuge’s 19 management units include a total of 920 acres of grassland. These units are burned every 3-5 years to reduce the amount of woody vegetation and organic matter (litter) and encourage growth of grass and forbs.
Forests
Presently, the forests on the Refuge are not actively managed.
Cropland
The Refuge crops 1,365 acres through coopera­tive farming agreements, an arrangement where local farmers plant and harvest the crops but must leave a portion of the crop as food for wildlife. The location of the portion left is determined by the Ref­uge. Crops, usually corn, soybeans, wheat, clover, or buckwheat, are planted in the spring and harvested anywhere from mid-September to the end of Octo­ber, but may occur later if conditions are too wet in the fall to allow harvesting. Winter wheat is gener­ally planted in October and left through the winter and harvested in June or July. On some areas, clo­ver is frost seeded in February. Frost seeding Figure 7: Management Units, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
27
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
28
entails broadcast seeding clover over existing win­ter wheat and allowing the freeze thaw action to work the seed into the ground. The clover fixes nitrogen into the soil and is either ploughed under in the fall or left through the winter. Cooperative farming is a management tool on Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: USFWS
The Refuge encourages the use of no-till farming, also known as conservation tillage. This method is practiced on about half of the sites annually. It is a way of growing crops from year to year without dis­turbing the soil through tillage. In no-till farming the soil is left intact and crop residues – stalks, stub­ble, leaves, and seed pods left after harvesting – are left in the fields. Despite the advantages to soils, no-till farming usually requires planting herbicide-resistant crop plants and then chemically weeding with herbicides. Herbicide-resistant crops are genetically modified organisms and their use on the Refuge is governed by regional policy.
Monitoring
Bald Eagle
Bald Eagles are monitored in conjunction with waterfowl counts.
Waterfowl
Waterfowl are monitored weekly in the spring and fall; however, it is difficult to get an accurate count of waterfowl use in the moist soil units during periods of heavy use because the birds are readily flushed from one unit to settle in an adjacent unit as the observer moves through the area.
Shorebirds, Marsh Birds and Other Waterbirds
Spring and fall shorebird surveys are conducted by Refuge staff. Marsh birds and other waterbirds are typically counted during shorebird surveys. Although there is much variation and many missing species in these counts due to the secretive nature of many of these birds, documentation of species occurrence is still considered important.
Vegetation
Vegetation surveys are usually conducted in late August or early September. Species variety is noted in the moist soil units as well as the presence of invasive plants.
Public Use
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve­ment Act established six priority uses of the Refuge System. These priority uses all depend on the pres­ence of, or expectation of the presence, of wildlife, and are thus called wildlife-dependent uses. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, pho­tography, environmental education, and interpreta­tion. Swan Lake NWR provides opportunities in all of the six priority uses of the Refuge System.
Hunting
Currently goose and white-tailed deer hunting are permitted on the Refuge. The goose hunting season typically begins in November and ends in January. It occurs at 21 designated units allocated to hunters with a daily drawing on each day of the hunt (see Figure 8). No fees are charged for the goose hunt program. At the conclusion of the regu­lar goose season a special season established through the Service’s Conservation Order to reduce Snow Goose numbers begins and continues until March 1.
There are three white-tailed deer hunts. Two of the hunts are considered managed hunts and are listed as such in the Missouri Department of Con­servation hunting season regulations and usually occur on successive weekends in November and December. One of the public hunts is a youth hunt open to modern firearms and the other hunt is a regular public hunt open to muzzleloaders only. The Refuge also offers a hunt for disabled hunters that is not part of the MDC managed deer hunt program.
Fishing
The Refuge has a boat ramp and three paved bank fishing platforms on Silver Lake (Figure 8). Fishing activity also includes archery fishing and trotlines. The most common species in the Refuge are channel catfish, bullhead, carp, buffalo, and crappie. Fishing platforms are universally accessi­ble. No special permit is required for fishing on the Refuge, and all state and Refuge regulations apply. The Refuge is open to fishing from March 1 until October 15 with the exception of the area of the Refuge that is accessed by the Taylor Point Road, which allows fishing access along Elk Creek and the north shore of Silver Lake. Figure 8: Current Visitor Services Facilities, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
29
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
30
Wildlife Observation, and Photography
Opportunities for wildlife observation and pho­tography are found along the Refuge roads, at the overlook, and along the nature trail (Figure 8). The benches provided at the fishing platforms on Silver Lake and the universally accessible hunting blind can also be used for wildlife observation.
From 10,000 to 80,000 Canada Geese, up to 150,000 Snow Geese, and over 100,000 ducks can commonly be seen. In addition, more than 240 other species of birds are found here. Appendix C includes the Refuge’s bird checklist. Information kiosk on the Refuge. Photo credit: FWS
Environmental Education and Interpretation
The Refuge is located in a rural setting in North-central Missouri that requires long commutes from most schools. Nonetheless, the Refuge is an attrac­tive environmental education opportunity because of its unique wildlife resources and its location near a state park that also attracts school groups. Self-guided interpretation is available at the Refuge visi­tor center and along a nearby trail.
Non Wildlife-dependent Recreation
Visitors are allowed to gather nuts, berries, and mushrooms as well as to collect shed antlers in accordance with Refuge regulations.
Species Management
Animal Species
High densities of species like white-tailed deer, beaver, and raccoons can severely affect habitat quality and/or other species. Our primary goal in managing these populations is to provide complex habitat structures to meet the nesting, feeding, and resting requirements of migratory birds, listed spe­cies, and other wildlife. We continue to monitor deer herd size and health and attempt to manage density through a public hunt. Beaver are trapped when a management problem is identified.
Plant Species
Invasive or pest plants can affect many habitat types found at the Refuge. Reed canary grass and American lotus can invade wetlands, and Sericia lespedeza, Johnson grass, black locust, and honey locust can invade grasslands. To reduce encroach­ment by these species, we use several management techniques, such as hand pulling individual plants, mowing, burning, water level manipulation, plowing, and chemical applications. The technique we select is influenced by management objectives, intensity of encroachment, best land use practices, cost, and timing of application.
Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are important parts of the nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to pro­tecting valuable evidence of human interactions with each other and the landscape. Protection is accom­plished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.
Other Management Areas
Research Natural Area
The 1,000-acre Yellow Creek Research Natural Area (Figure 9) was established in 1973 and includes mature bottomland hardwood forest. No management activities occur in the Research Natu­ral Area. Research Natural Areas are part of a national network of reserved areas under various ownerships. Research Natural Areas are intended to represent the full array of North American eco­systems with their biological communities, habitats, natural phenomena, and geological and hydrological formations.
In research natural areas, as in designated wil­derness, natural processes are allowed to predomi­nate without human intervention. Under certain circumstances, deliberate manipulation may be used to maintain the unique features for which the research natural area was established. Activities such as hiking, bird watching, hunting, fishing, wild­life observation, and photography are permissible, but not mandated, in research natural areas.
Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements and Fee Title Tracts
Swan Lake NWR manages 46 easements and outlying fee title tracts scattered across 15 Missouri counties (see Figure 10 on page 32). Little active Figure 9: Yellow Creek Research Natural Area
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
31
management occurs on these sites. The Farm Ser­vices Agency, formerly known as the Farm Services Administration, is an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The FSA makes loans to farmers and ranchers temporarily unable to obtain credit from commercial lending institutions. The FSA sometimes obtains title to real property when a borrower defaults on a loan secured by the property and holds such properties in inventory until sale or other disposal.
The Service is involved in the inventory disposal program because some FSA inventory properties contain or support significant fish and wildlife resources or have healthy restorable wetlands or other unique habitats. Some qualifying properties are transferred to the Service and become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Others are sold with restrictions known as conservation ease­ments, which protect wetlands or other habitats. In most cases, the Service is responsible for the man­agement and administration of properties with con­servation easements. Figure 10: FSA Parcels Managed by Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment and Management
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
32
Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
33
Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives
The Environmental Assessment in Appendix A describes and analyzes three management alterna­tives for Swan Lake NWR. The Service identifies one as its preferred alternative and it is described in the following chapter as the proposed future man­agement direction that would guide activities on the Refuge for the next 15 years.
Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the proposed future management direction. Goals are descriptive broad statements of desired future con­ditions that convey a purpose. There are three goals for Swan Lake NWR. Goals are followed by objec­tives, which are specific statements describing man­agement intent. Objectives provide detail and are supported by rationale statements that describe background, history, assumptions, and technical details to help clarify how the objective was formu­lated.
Finally, beneath each objective there is a list of strategies, the specific actions, tools, and techniques required to fulfill the objective. The strategies may be refined or amended as specific tasks are com­pleted or new research and information come to light. Some strategies are linked to the duties of an employee position, which indicates that the strategy will be accomplished with the help of a new staff position. When a time in number of years is noted in an objective or strategy, it refers to the number of years from approval of this CCP. If no time is given, the objective is to be accomplished within the 15 years of the life of the Plan.
Goal A: Habitat
Wetlands, grasslands, and bottomland forests providing habi­tat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife within the Grand River floodplain.
Objective 1-1: Streams and Water Bodies
Over the long term (50 years), mimic compo­nents of historic hydrologic function along reaches of Elk Creek, Turkey Creek, Tough Branch, and Yellow Creek that are within the Refuge (Figure 11). Over the 15-year life of the Plan, allow for seasonal and annual variations in water levels within the Swan Lake and Silver Lake basins to increase the amount and variety of native vegetation (see Objective 1-2 Emer­gent Wetland). Bullfrog. Photo credit: FWS
Rationale
Service policy calls for maintaining or, where fea­sible and consistent with Refuge purposes, restor­ing the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features compara­ble with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Alterations to hydrologic conditions – water movement, distribu­tion, and quality – within the Grand River water­shed over the past 150 years make it infeasible to fully restore historic hydrologic conditions, but it is possible to mimic some components of historic hydrology within the Refuge including seasonal and annual water level fluctuations and low impedance to water movement. Reintroducing these elements of historic hydrologic conditions is consistent with Service policy and would continue to meet the pur­poses of the Refuge by providing habitat for migra­tory birds and other wildlife. The near-term Figure 11: Potential Water Movement and Likely Associated Vegetation, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
34
Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
35
objective of increasing the amount and variety of vegetation within the impoundments also helps ful­fill Refuge purposes. Presently (2009), the Silver Lake basin serves as a reservoir to provide source water for management activities across the Refuge, dedicating approximately one-fifth of total Refuge acres as open water that is largely devoid of aquatic vegetation and of little value to migratory birds for much of each year. Periodic dewatering of these basins would promote vegetative growth and increase their value as habitat. Swan Lake NWR. Photo credit: FWS
Strategies
1.Conduct a hydrogeomorphic evaluation of the Refuge and surrounding area to assess his­toric hydrologic functions.
2.Monitor surface waters that impact Refuge hydrology (e.g. stage, stream flow, volume) including seasonal inflow variations within Elk Creek and Turkey Creek.
3.Monitor common invasive species pathways (e.g. streams, waterways, roads, trails) to aid in early detection of invasive species while continuing to treat known infestations as appropriate throughout the Refuge.
4.Conduct seasonal and annual drawdowns of the Swan Lake and Silver Lake basins and incorporate those drawdowns into the water management plan in conjunction with other water management on the Refuge.
Objective 1-2: Emergent Wetland
Within Wetland Management Units
Current (2010) amount about 1,700 acres
Over the life of the Plan, maintain at least 1,200 acres and up to 1,800 acres of emergent wetland habitat primarily within the Silver Lake, Swan Lake, and South Pool basins where bulrush and cattails comprise 25-50 percent of areal cover­age and narrow-leafed cattail, bur reed, lotus, and arrowhead comprise less than 5 percent of areal coverage. Within 1 year of CCP approval, develop a water management regime that helps maintain the plant species mix described above.
Within Moist Soil Management Units
Current (2010) amount 13 units totaling about 800 acres
Over the life of the Plan, use moist soil tech­niques (as described in "Moist Soil Units" on page 26) to manage emergent wetlands at loca­tions and an amount to be determined after the completion of an ongoing hydrogeomorphic evaluation. Manage moist soil areas to provide a diversity of native herbaceous plant foods such as wild millet (Echinochloa spp.); panic grass (Panicum spp.); smartweed (Polygonum spp.); sedges (Cyperus spp. and Carex spp.); and beg­garticks (Bidens spp.), and ensure that up to 25 percent of the acreage is available as mud flat or shallow water (6 inches or less) unvegetated habitat in the spring and up to 10 percent of the acreage is available as mud flat or shallow water habitat with less than 50 percent cover in the fall for migrating shorebirds.
Rationale
The Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture (UMRGLRJV) Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy identifies two sets of habitat objectives: 1) Maintenance and Protection, that is the type and amount of habitat necessary to meet current waterfowl populations, and 2) Restora­tion and Enhancement, the amount and type of hab­itat necessary to meet waterfowl population goals. Emergent wetland managed using moist soil tech­niques fits within the Plan under the habitat catego­ries Wet mudflat/moist soil plants and Shallow semi-permanent marsh, hemi-marsh. Within the portion of Missouri covered by the Joint Venture, the Plan identifies a need for more than 3,300 acres of Wet mudflat/moist soil plants and 197,551 acres of Shal­low semi-permanent marsh, hemi-marsh habitat to meet existing waterfowl population levels. There is also a need for an additional 692 acres of wet mud­flats/moist soil plant habitat and 840 acres of Shal­low semi-permanent marsh, hemi-marsh to meet the target population goals. In addition, the Missouri Department of Conservation Wetland Management Plan (a step-down of the NAWMP) has an objective for state and federal refuges to provide habitat to support 29 million duck use days. Maintaining exist­ing Wet mudflat/moist soil plant and Shallow semi-permanent, hemi marsh habitats on Swan Lake NWR contributes to meeting these larger conserva­tion objectives as well as contributing to conserva­tion objectives outlined in the United States Figure 12: 15-Year Desired Land Cover, Swan Lake NWR
Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
36
Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
37
Shorebird Conservation Plan and the North Ameri­can Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Strategies
1.Use water manipulation to encourage growth of desired species of emergent marsh plants while retarding the growth of undesirable spe­cies.
2.Ensure that up to 25 percent of the acreage of moist soil units is available as mud flat or shal­low water (6 inches or less) unvegetated habi­tat in the spring and up to 10 percent of the acreage is available as mud flat or shallow water habitat with less than 50 percent cover in the fall for migrating shorebirds.
3.Periodically disturb areas under moist soil management through burning, disking, crop­ping, and seeding to retard succession of woody vegetation.
4.Consider other opportunities to install addi­tional levees and water control structures to create other moist soil units.
5.Remove mature willow stands to create more emergent marsh along the perimeter of emer­gent marsh habitats.
6.If necessary, install water wells to ensure water availability to flood moist soil units when water is not available from the Silver Lake Pool. Explore the feasibility of placing a pump station on Swan Lake so in the years that Silver is in draw down, water can be used from Swan Lake Pool to flood moist soil.
7.Treat known infestations of invasive species as appropriate within emergent wetland habitat while continuing to monitor common invasive species pathways (e.g. streams, waterways, roads, trails) to aid in early detection of inva­sive species introductions.
Objective 1-3 Shrub Swamp
Current (2010) amount is about 400 acres.
Over the life of the Plan, maintain 300 to 500 acres of shrub swamp dominated by at least 50 percent areal coverage of buttonbush and wil­low.
Rationale
The Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture (UMRGLRJV) produced four conservation strategies directed at shorebirds, land­birds, waterbirds, and waterfowl that identify habi­tat objectives necessary to maintain existing bird populations and additional habitat necessary to sup­port target populations. The compiled habitat objec­tives for all four conservation strategies are summarized in the UMRGLRJV Implementation Plan (2007). Shrub swamp fits within the Plan under the habitat category “Marsh” with associated forest/shrub. Within the portion of Missouri covered by the Joint Venture (approximately two-thirds of the state) the Plan identifies a need for nearly 17,000 acres of marsh with associated forest/shrub habitat to meet existing bird population levels and the need for an additional 3,367 acres to meet bird population goals. Maintaining existing shrub swamp habitat on the Refuge contributes to meeting this larger con­servation objective.
Strategies
1.Use water manipulation to encourage growth of desired species while retarding the growth of undesirable species.
2. Look at past aerial photography to determine the changes in the amount of this habitat within the Refuge.
3.Encourage and allow overgrowth of shrub communities along riparian areas and in some cases along the toe of Refuge levees.
4.Treat known infestations of invasive species as appropriate within shrub swamp habitat while continuing to monitor common invasive spe­cies pathways (e.g. streams, waterways, roads, trails) to aid in early detection of invasive spe­cies introductions.
Objective 1-4 Wet Meadow
Current (2010) amount is about 100 acres.
Within 5 years of Plan approval, convert approximately 530 acres of existing cropland; food plots; areas of dense early successional for­est largely comprised of willow; buttonbush, and silver maple; and areas dominated by reed canary grass to wet meadow comprised of sedges (e.g. Cyperus spp. and Carex spp.), prai­rie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), and forbs (e.g. Asclepias spp., Polygonum spp., Vernoniaspp., Solidago spp., Bidens spp., Ambrosia spp., Rudbeckia spp.).
Rationale
Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring Refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so is feasible and does not conflict with Refuge purposes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The primary purpose of the Refuge is to provide habitat for migratory birds. In addition to waterfowl, this includes many other water birds and migrant land­birds. Cropland and food plots are not native habi­tat, and although they attract wildlife, are not as diverse as native habitat. Properly managed wet Chapter 4: Management Goals and Objectives
Swan Lake NWR / Draft CCP
38
meadows can provide an important food source for migrating waterfowl. Wet meadows are a type of wetland that occurs where groundwater is at or near the surface most of the growing season following spring runoff. Wet meadows provide important eco­logical benefits including breeding and foraging habitat for birds and invertebrates and habitat for wetland plants. The single most important charac­teristic of a wet meadow is its hydrology. Seasonal­ity and reliability of yearly water inflows and outflows largely determine the vegetational stability of wet meadows.
Strategies
1.Study the possibility of restoring sheet flow across the Refuge to create wet meadow habi­tat in support of the suite of species associated with wet meadow habitat.
2.Consider restoring wet meadow in the corri­dor that leads into Swan Lake.
3.Periodically disturb areas through burning, mowing, grazing, or other means to retard woody succession. Coordinate with Ecological Services regarding appropriate activities within habitat for eastern massasauga rattle­snake but, in general, avoid haying, grazing, mowing or other disturbance methods that may be harmful to the snake.
4.Treat known infestations of invasive species as appropriate within wet meadow habitat while continuing to monitor common invasive spe­cies pathways (e.g. streams, waterways, roads, trails) to aid in early detection of invasive spe­cies introductions.
Objective 1-5 Native Upland Prairie
Current (2010) amount is about 1,000 acres.
Within 10 years of Plan approval, convert approximately 835 acres of existing cropland or food plots to native prairie, and maintain a diverse floral community within converted and existing grasslands composed of at least 50 per��cent of native prairie plant species identified for this area.
Rationale
Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring Refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so is feasible and does not conflict with Refuge purposes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The primary purpose of the Refuge is to provide habitat for migratory birds. In addition to waterfowl, this includes many other water birds and migrant land­birds. Cropland and food plots are not native habi­tat, and although they attract wildlife, are not as diverse as native habitat. Short and tall grass prai­ries were major habitat types in much of the Great Plains including part of Central Missouri. These habitat types were actively maintained and man­aged by Native Americans using fire as a manage­ment tool. Fire suppression and a major shift to agriculture have dramatically reduced the extent of this ecosystem type. Providing a representative example of this habitat type on the Refuge will serve a variety of species that prefer this habitat and pro­vide the public with an important environmental education opportunity as to the importance of this habitat and its history in the area.
Strategies
1.Increase species diversity of existing grass­lands to include forbs, etc.
2.Develop a fire management plan for the main­tenance of this habitat type.
3.Implement a grazing program that introduces natural grazing regimes to native grasslands to maintain grassland quality and biological diversity.
4.Coordinate with Ecological Services regarding appropriate activities within habitat for east­ern massasauga rattlesnake but, in general, avoid haying, grazing, mowing or other distur­bance methods that may be harmful to the snake.
5.Treat known infestations of invasive species as appropriate within prairie habitat while con­tinuing to monitor common invasive species pathways (e.g. streams, waterways, roads, trails) to aid in early detection of invasive spe­cies introductions.
Objective 1-6 Cropland
Current (2010) amount is about 1,400 acres.
Within 10 years of Plan approval, convert all cropland to other native habitats (see Objec­tives 1-2, 1-4 and 1-5).
Rationale
Service policy calls for maintaining or restoring refuge habitats to historic conditions if doing so is feasible and does not conflict with refuge purposes (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). Cropland is not native habitat, it requires intensive manage­ment, and although it attracts some type